Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408
Material Facts:
The appellant was at one point the managing director of Asanti Turf Club Ltd. He was accused of stealing money belonging to the Club. In his defence, it was normal for him to receive money from the cashier and pay for the expenses of the Club without issuing receipts. However, he was convicted of the offence, and he appealed.
In the present appeal, the appellant is contending that the trial circuit judge misdirected himself seriously as to the burden of proof and thus shifted the burden onto the defendant, occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant was given the burden of proving that he was not guilty of the offence of stealing.
Holding:
The appellant was wrongfully given the burden of proving that he was not guilty.
Ratio Decidendi:
It is apparent that the Circuit Court put the burden of proof on the appellant. This is because after the appellant told the police that he paid some money to some persons, including one Gyimah and Kofi Oppong, they were called by the prosecution, and they denied receiving money from the appellant. In light of this denial, the Circuit Court held as follows:
Defence counsel has not shown any reason why I should not believe this witness [meaning Gyimah]. I believe this witness and find as a fact that accused never paid £G25 to him.
…
The defence has not shown any other reasons upon which the witness should be discredited. I am satisfied that this witness never received the amount of £G5 for the purpose alleged by accused.
These pronouncements seem to suggest that the appellant had a burden to discharge.
In holding that the appellant did not have the burden to prove that he is not guilty, the court said:
The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and that the evidential burden rests on the accused where at the end of the case of the prosecution an explanation is required of him, are illustrated by a series of cases. Burden of proof in this context is used in two senses. It may mean the burden of establishing a case or it may mean the burden of introducing evidence. In the first sense it always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; but the burden of proof of introducing evidence rests on the prosecution in the first instance but may subsequently shift to the defence, especially where the subject-matter is peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge and the circumstances are such as to call for some explanation.
In Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, (34th ed.) at p. 371, para. 1001, these principles are stated thus:
“Where the prosecution gives prima facie evidence from which the guilt of the prisoner might be presumed and which, therefore, calls for an explanation by the prisoner and no answer or explanation is given, a presumption is raised upon which the jury may be justified in returning a verdict of ‘guilty’. But if an explanation is given by or on behalf of the prisoner which raises in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he is entitled to be acquitted, because if upon the whole of the evidence in the case the jury are left in a real state of doubt the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies n upon them.”In the leading case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions (1) Lord Sankey said:
“No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”The law is well settled that there is no burden on the accused. If there is any burden at all on the accused, it is not to prove anything, but to raise a reasonable doubt. If the accused can raise only such a reasonable doubt he must be acquitted.
Summarily, in a criminal case, the accused does not have a burden to prove that he is not guilty. If at all, the accused is only required to raise a reasonable doubt, after which he is entitled to be acquitted.
Principles in Case: